Hans_lune Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> No it isn't - you've been asked for 10+ years to
> show evidence you have none.

All I do is cite evidence. Every single post is citation of evidence and you ignore it or gainsay it on the rare occasion you can see it at all. When I say the language breaks Zipf's law, there are no abstractions, or there exists no word for "thought" this is "evidence". When I point at ruins that is evidence. Everything is "evidence".

When I point out there are almost no words in the language other than nouns why don't you prove me wrong? Why not try to show the language obeys Zipf's and Heap's Laws? Why not try to show all the physical evidence doesn't lays out exactly as I say it does?

They said in reference to the dead king, "he is the pyramid" and "he is a star". These are simple facts and no amount of your denial can change this. I can admit that Egyptology could be correct that nothing in the PT would be meant literally but you can't admit that everything could have been meant literally. I can admit that it's not really impossible for Egyptology to be right about anything but you can't imagine a world that they are wrong about anything at all. Yet in both of our worlds the builders still said "the dead king is a star". Why is this?

Why does the evidence I cite mean nothing but the absence of bodies prove the pyramids were tombs, the absence of ramps prove stones were dragged into position, and the absence of literal meaning in the PT proves they didn't really mean it when they said the king was a star and a pyramid?

> Yep and guess what when subsituted it doesn't make
> sense in 100% as you predicted, your idea has been
> falsified.

Spoiler alert; I already made this deduction before you couldn't see it.

If I believed revisiting it would affect your opinion I'd have done so by now. You wouldn't even grant that "shu" almost always appeared in sentences where upward movement was stated or implied. You insist on parsing every word even when I say you can't do it with AL. You can't define one single word in a language and expect to comprehend that language. The "experiment" as YOU call it was merely an attempt to show you that the word "could" mean "upward" not that you would magically understand the PT because you now knew a single word. You didn't get it. You won't get it now. There is little point in revisiting it here.

AL was very very simple and just knowing that they said the king is a pyramid and star could be sufficient to understanding WHY they built the great pyramids! But you must look past your beliefs to see that it's possible the language was literal and NOT metaphoric.

> No Cladking your stating so doesn't make it true -

Your denying it doesn't make it false and still they literally said "he is the pyramid" and they said he is a star. These are simple facts and that they don't agree with your beliefs or your denials is irrelevant.

> They did think like us - your opinion is not
> evidence

My opinion is based ON WHAT THEY SAID as well as what they did not say.

____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2023 04:17PM by cladking.